On 10/10/2015 07:51 AM, Andrew Purtell wrote: > We should address perceived, and certainly provable, instances of > corruption at the Foundation directly, rather than prescribe policy that > seeks to prevent future instances as if there is a precedent (but there > isn't one here... at least one not spoken aloud, right?).
We shouldn't need to have publicly available cases of wrong-doings to say "no wrong-doings please". We hold our politicians to this standard where I come from - it's called the Arm's Length Principle, and it's worked very well. > >> A mentor must not be financially tied to the project or its incubation > status. > > Aside from deviating greatly from treating mentors and all other persons as > individuals, for verification purposes this would require a level of > intrusive financial reporting that we don't remotely approach today and to > which most members would probably object. I'm not suggesting we start auditing people. As later clarified, I am suggesting people recuse themselves from voting if they (or others?) feel that they have economic or other corporate interests that may cloud either their judgment or their perceived judgment. The reason I said 'mentors' here is because the mentor role, as it currently is, is a mix of attorney, judge, jury and executioner in the podlings. If we were to separate this and mentors were solely in charge of _mentoring_, the issue would be more moot. > >> A mentor must not have a vested interest in incubating, graduating or > dismantling a podling that goes beyond the general Apache mission > > None of this is well defined. Agreed, I picked the wrong word to use here. I prefer Sam's revisement, as stated earlier. With regards, Daniel. > >> If you are a in the original community behind the project, you cannot > mentor it nor vote for/against it. > > This diminishes the pool of available mentors and in particular those > probably most vested in the success of the podling. > > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 8:07 AM, Daniel Gruno <humbed...@apache.org> wrote: > >> Hi Incubator folks, >> >> I would like to propose we adopt a mentor neutrality policy for >> incubating podlings: >> >> - A mentor must not be financially tied to the project or its incubation >> status. >> - A mentor must not have a vested interest in incubating, graduating or >> dismantling a podling that goes beyond the general Apache mission >> - A mentor must not be affiliated with the entity granting the code >> (company or original project community) >> >> Furthermore, I would like to see this extended to votes on graduating or >> retiring podlings, so that only people with no organizational (aparty >> from the ASF) or financial ties to the project (or the companies behind >> it) can cast a binding vote on graduation or retirement. >> >> This would essentially mean: >> >> - If you work for a company (or are hired as consultant/advisor) that is >> entering a project into incubation, you cannot mentor it nor vote >> for/against its incubation, graduation or retirement. >> - If you are a in the original community behind the project, you cannot >> mentor it nor vote for/against it. >> >> I believe this would create a neutral mentorship whose sole mission is >> to guide podlings with the interests of the ASF in mind. >> >> >> Please do discuss this. If there is (mostly) positive feedback, I would >> like to, at some point, have a vote on including this in the Incubator >> policy. I realize this would cut down on the number of potential >> mentors, and I would ask that more people step up to the challenge of >> mentoring if adopted. >> >> With regards, >> Daniel >> >> --------------------------------------------------------------------- >> To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org >> For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org >> >> > > --------------------------------------------------------------------- To unsubscribe, e-mail: general-unsubscr...@incubator.apache.org For additional commands, e-mail: general-h...@incubator.apache.org
